The NHS is just such a large and cumbersome organisation, many think it has too much management and I tend to agree.
I know that the popular belief is that there is too much management in the NHS, but is it founded on fact? I don't believe it is, and this page of search results says it isn't true:
duckduckgo.com/?q=does+the+nhs+have+too+many+managers&t=chromentp&ia=web
Some research reports even conclude that the NHS is undermanaged.
The NHS is very short of the technical equipment it needs, which, of course, increases waiting times as people have to wait until diagnostic equipment is free. Hence the shuffling them off into the private sector.
But, even though this is good news for people whose waiting time is shortened by this (and I'm a fine one to talk as I'm taking advantage of this to get a hip replacement) but I can't help feeling that when you consider that doing this is contributing to private sector profits and to shareholders dividends, it would be better for the NHS, from a financial point of view, to cut out the middle man and be enabled to do these procedures themselves.
A small point to consider is that the private sector isn't geared up to deal with complications or emergencies. These get sent back to the NHS...
when you consider that doing this is contributing to private sector profits and to shareholders dividends,
I know there are people who would see nothing wrong with this, but my small experience of 'privatisation' in the past with hospital cleaning services and school meals provision was not good. In both cases standards went down because profit had to be costed in, which meant skimping in other directions.